Banning Page 3 v right to 'Free Speech'

[HollyFP]

I had an argument discussion with someone on FB recently about Page 3s. I am voting for a ban, they started bleating on about right to 'free speech' and this being the first step to censorship and where would we draw the line...(that tempted me further but I resisted the goading)

Now I'm all in favour of free speech in theory but not when it's harmful to the vunerable, victimised or those who can't speak up for themselves. Page 3 is the 'socially acceptable' part of porn it seems in this country.

I was getting fairly pee'd off with this person ignoring my arguments about Page 3 and instead insisting that censorship is a dangerous line to tread.

What do you say to someone when they either miss the point or think the right to free speech comes above women's rights, IYSWIM?

Well, if it's a FB row, I come on here and ask for reinforcments from my feministing FB friends!

I would point out the known links between the objectification of women and violence against women and ask them why they wouldn't want to stop an activity that we know leads to more women being raped.

My replies were like that Flamingo, but the reply-ee seemed to have their head in an awkward and dark place...

It's like democracy gone mad. We can't stand up to protect one sector of society without others demanding'Free Speech' or some other bollocks reason for not actually understanding the issue.

Is the discussion on-going? PM me and I'll add you to my fb friends and come and join in!

In my mind, a ban of Page 3 is radical but necessary. It would create the much-needed discussion amongst the public as to why such a thing is needed.

Following on from that would come discussions and changes to other areas of sex discrimination, porn, prostitution etc.

It has to start somewhere, right? Is there another way of reducing the disturbing amounts of Page 3s without resorting to a ban?

It stopped this morning after the OP (who created the link to the Page 3 ban, and not the person i was arguing with) came back with a nice middle-ground response that was a bit of a thread kill!
(Have just PM-ed you too)

I've seen a great thing which summarises the whole free speech thing but I don't recall where. But in a nutshell, we don't all have equal access to free speech anyway. If you have privilege you have free speech cos you can access the resources. If you don't, you don't have free speech. I'll see if I can find it...

"Now I'm all in favour of free speech in theory but not when......"

The thin end of the wedge/slippery slope of opression!

higgle that's my point, I am trying to support those that are IMO opressed/victimised. That's why I don't support free speech with regard to Page 3, nor would I support free speech if it were racially abusive etc.

How do feminists reconcile the two?

I dont think the Free Speech argument is valid as there is no 'speech' involved with pictures of Page 3 girls.

Censorship of visual images is hardly a new thing - for example the ASA can ban adverts that are felt to be offensive; also under the Obscene Publications Act there are limits too what you are allowed to show on magazine covers

This is an interesting read, Proles.

Freedom is not subjecting children to objectifying women in a supposed newspaper.

I believe you could move to get a consensus from the readers of the paper.

That way freedom and democracy wouldn't be an issue and there is a chance it would be removed by popular demand.

The link between pornography and rape is debatable, and it should be debated.

But all the complaining on earth is never going to end pornography or prostitution.

Flamingo that looks interesting, will read properly when baby gives me a break I get chance.

Prolesworth

Melissa McEwan touches on this quite a lot at Shakesville. "my rights end where yours begin" and the difference between "freedom to" and "freedom from".
Women have a right to be free from objectification, which trumps mens right to objectify us.
As usual I can't find the right post at Shakesville. Will keep looking.

Holly - try linking to for your friend.

Ask him if he would support a picture of a black person every day in a national newspaper being portrayed as an idiot, a mugger or a black and white minstrel, or a Jew being portrayed as a Fagin or a Shylock every single day and if not why not?

Because that is what they are doing to women.

And also, why don't they have a picture of a page 2 hunk opposite, with toned pecs and g string revealing oiled buttocks? Every single day?

Because their male readers would be made to feel uncomfortable, that's why.

I don't think this is a free speech issue - unless nipples can talk.

fantastic, TondelayoSchwarzkopf